What we talk about when we talk about biolinguistics

Abstract

The study of the biological foundations of language is sometimes called biolinguistics. This particular term finds its historical origins in the 1950s, and for various reasons it has also gained considerable traction in recent years. While its increasing use apparently signals an equally increasing interest in biology, apart from a few exceptions not much is added to and beyond standard linguistic theorizing by those linguists who use it, resulting in a complex and confusing literature. This state of affairs has led, on the one hand, to the perpetuation of proposals that are hard to relate to the biological literature and, on the other, to ill-placed criticism on the progress and even the very legitimacy of a biologically-informed study of language. By reviewing different ways in which research under the biolinguistics label has been carried out, as well as some common criticisms, we hope to dispel some misconceptions about what constitutes a biolinguistic approach, as well as point out what we contend is real progress in the study of the biological bases and evolution of the human language faculty, to which the term is better and rightly applied.

Human language evolution: a view from theoretical linguistics on how syntax and the lexicon first came into being

“…As such, it is intended as part of biolinguistics, biological studies of language, covering a wide range of related research fields not limited to linguistics (Boeckx and Grohmann 2013 ). Sometimes biolinguistics is even equated with generative grammar in the literature but that is an unwarranted view (see Martins and Boeckx ( 2016 ) for relevant discussion). We assume, however, that generative grammar provides a, not the , firm theoretical foundation for today’s biolinguistics.…”

Chapter 9. There is no place for markedness in biologically-informed phonology

“…The term "biolinguistics" is also-perhaps most often, unfortunately-used as an updated label for "generative linguistics", which can cause confusion, as it often does. For a discussion on different senses of "biolinguistics" (and, by extension, "biolinguist"), and the motivations behind them, see Martins & Boeckx (2016b).…”

Biolinguistics: A Scientometric Analysis of Research on (Children’s) Molecular Genetics of Speech and Language (Disorders)

“…This is primarily because one can differentiate in the relevant literature between two views of biolinguistics. Martins and Boecks [ 32 ] (p. 1) identify the first as relating to works which are inclined towards generative persuasion and theoretical linguistics while the second rather departs from linguistic inquiry towards a more biology-based orientation. In that sense, it is possible to link such perceptions to what Boecks and Grohmann [ 33 ] refer to as weak and strong versions of biolinguistics.…”

“…Going along the same line of thought, Bickerton [ 37 ] casts the minimalist approach as being ambiguous besides highlighting some biological underpinnings in biolinguistics works as either misunderstood or overestimated. Martins and Boeckx [ 32 ] criticize current work affiliated with biolinguistics for failing to address linguistics and biology appropriately by ignoring biological inspirations extensively and not investing in sufficient linguistic theorization. By the same token, Bowling [ 38 ] highlights the misleading nature–nurture dichotomy that perpetuates biolinguistics literature.…”